Blue, exactly how dead do you want this horse to be before you bury it?

No, I never "made up my own rule".

Obviously, you did.

Quote

Based on the FACT a relatively new unofficial INTERPRETATION made absolutely no sense to me (or apparently anyone else as nobody EVER tried to explain any logic associated with it) I chose to ignore that interpretation and view the situation through the prism of what made sense (for previous decades) and should I be querstioned about, I could rationally explain.

It was NOT unofficial, it was a VERY official interpretaion of the playing rules that was sent to the Oregon High School Assocition in response to the inquiry that was sent to the NFHS. That wasn't some internet official offering up his opinion, it was an OFFICIAL interpretation issued by the NFHS. But becasue they didn't send it to you, you "chose to ignore it".

As for logic, their interpetation was in complete agreement with the rules as they were written. It was a loophole, just like the "The offense that shall not be named" offense. I don't know why you continue to think it illogical. SHOULD it have been the way the rule was written? Of course not. But it was.

And just like with the "The offense that shall not be named", it took a RULE CHANGE, not a new INTERPRETATION, in order to fix it.

Read the long list of responses. You are in a VERY small minority that thinks you ever had the authority to say the rule was incorrect and was an incomplete pass. Most officials (and the Rules Committee) realized it was a loophole that needed to be closed. Great, they closed it.

We had a discussion at a clinic today about officials that make up their own interpretations based on what they think they rule SHOULD be, and those that fall back on 1-1-6: the consensus among the instructors was that these guys have long sub-varsity careers.

Quote

I'm under the distinct impression, the NFHS expects me to have the "balls" to do what I believe is correct, no matter who, or how many, may disagree.

No, they expect you to use the rules as they were given to you, not say you have the authority to make up your own.

Sometimes the best way to end the pain of an irritation under your saddle, is just to get off the horse. The 2011 revision ends the ambiguity and intends to render this situation, “Case closed”.

I’ll agree, I have never seen your, “a VERY official interpretation of the playing rules that was sent to the Oregon High School Assocition in response to the inquiry that was sent to the NFHS.”, so I don’t know what it said, whether it provided any rationality or logic or whether I would gree with it.

I’ve explained why I believe the original "revised interpretation" was illogical, but in case you weren’t paying attention, allow me to summarize.

1. It is clearly understood that the game of football is played within a field, whose dimensions are specified in 1-1-2. The rest of the planet, outside those lines, is OOB.

2. A player is inbounds, until he goes OOB (thus allowing for a player who alights from inbounds, over a boundary line, remains inbounds until he touches, or is touched by someone, OOB.

3. Common sense, and an understanding and appreciation of the purpose of the game, suggests, that opponents can either be inbounds, or OOB and logic suggests a player somehow has to go from one status to the next. A player is inbounds UNTIL HE GOES OOB, seems logical that he then REMAINS OOB UNTIL HE COMES INBOUNDS (Whether he is legally inbounds or not is another question).

The absolute absurdity of a player, who has already fully passed from being inbounds to being fully OOB, could somehow retain status as being inbounds, without ever bothering to to be back within the confines of the playing field, by simply jumping into the air, in my humble judgment, MAKES NO GOD DARN SENSE WHATSOEVER.

Personally, I respect this game, it’s rules and it’s rule makers to the extent I believe they would NEVER do something that deliberately MAKES NO SENSE and creates a travesty of the purpose and intent of this great game, and then expect those they have specifically given authority to exercise good judgment, to go along with something so foreign to the conduct of this game, without exercising that judgment.

Your above assessment that, “officials that make up their own interpretations based on what they think they rule SHOULD be” is the kind of HORSE HOCKEY presentation my daughters make when they are trying to persuade their mother to listen to their side of a story, so I’m not surprised it was received negatively. Thankfully, my wife was usually smart enough to see through that teenage tactic.

It seems the underlying irritation beneath your saddle might be that football rule makers decided that NF: 1-1-6 bestowed the power of FINAL say, “on any situation not specifically covered by the rules…and all decisions are final in ALL matters pertaining to the game to Referees, rather than coaches. Perhaps the rule makers were confident Referees were the only appropriate participants they were confident could handle such authority wisely and judiciously, on a consistent basis.

I am thankful you are not a WH in Georgia. After working all day at an Official's Clinic yesterday, I am glad our officials respect the rules rather than their own god complexes.

I'm really happy that, as a coach, you are comfortable with the officials who service your games.

Remembering that they work hard, intend to do the best job possible, often under extreme pressure, are faced with split second decision making and perhaps most of all intend to do so in a fair and impartial manner favoring neither team, in an always emotionally charged atmosphere, should allow you to understand they are human, subject to somewhat different perspectives, or observations, than your own.

It’s always easier to go with the crowd than stick with principles, but principles usually (although sadly not always) take you in a good direction.

The 2011 season is fast approaching, during which there likely will be occasional disagreements, and as long as they’re not handled disagreeably, the game will go on. There will be exactly the same number of winning and losing teams, both of whom will hopefully benefit from the effort and experience, and we’ll all be back for a 2012 season.

Unless there is some third state of existence defined in Rule 2 that I've missed then as far as NFHS football is concerned, if you do not meet the definition of "out of bounds", you are "inbounds".

The rules last year (and this year) list things a player may not do while OOB.

The rules last year (and this year) state that a player may not go out of bounds and return to the field during the down unless forced OOB by an opponent.

The new rule this year lists things a player is unable to do once they have intentionally gone OOB, irrespective of whether they currently meet the definition of OOB or not.

The "Oregon Play" took advantage of items 1, 2, and 5 by no longer meeting the definition of being OOB, yet also not returning to the field and falling afoul of item 5. The new rule described in item 6 effectively closes this loophole in the rules.